The scandal surrounding John Edwards’ $400 haircuts continues to grow like an unsightly loose end. The sad tale has officially migrated from Blogistan, achieving mainstream respectability in the pages of the New York Times. The Grey Lady reports:

A spokesman for the campaign, Eric Schultz, said that Torrenueva Hair Designs of Beverly Hills sent the bill for a haircut in February and a second last month to the Edwards campaign and that the campaign mistakenly paid it. Mr. Schultz said Mr. Edwards would reimburse the campaign. He would not say how a haircut could cost $400 or whether it might cover other expenses, too. The stylist, Joseph Torrenueva, said in an interview that his normal charge was $175 “in my shop” and that the extra fee was to go to where the candidate was, a practice he described as routine among his clients. Beyond that, he said, “I really can’t talk about it.”

First off, I’m calling bull-shinola on Schultz’s explanation of how the campaign came to pay the bill. In the normal course of things, one leaves a salon and pays one’s bill on one’s way out. While Torrenueva may have been compensated in the fashion that the campaign claims, there is no logical explanation of how Manchester’s Pink Sapphire could have mistakenly sent the bill to the wrong place. I would bet that the Pink Sapphire typically doesn’t send bills out at all.

I have also consulted my own stylist, Lenny DiPasquale of Harvard Square’s Leonard Stephen salon (who gives a great haircut for more than a barber but for a tiny fraction of $400), to get some additional insight. Lenny assures me that for $400 in Iowa and New Hampshire (at the previously mentioned Pink Sapphire), Edwards was getting a lot more done than just a trim of his admittedly lovely locks. No wonder why the campaign is being evasive. The image of Edwards with a mud mask and cucumbers covering his eyes is one that could stick with the general public. (Is there not an ambitious photo-shop wizard out there who would like to enjoy fleeting fame by creating such an image and sending it to me?)

I must admit, though, that I do enjoy stylist Torrenueva’s invocation of barber-client privilege. Should the legal system’s rules of evidence not be changed to reflect the new reality that for some people their stylist is the equivalent of a doctor? Toranueva certainly charges more than a doctor.

(Thanks to Okie on the Lam for the image.)

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.